Regina v Tarpey - [2001] NSWCCA 300

CITATION: Regina v Tarpey [2001] NSWCCA 300

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60841/00

HEARING DATE(S): 6 August 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
6 August 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Joshua William Tarpey

JUDGMENT OF: Dowd J at 34; Smart AJ at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/21/1163; 00/21/1121

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : O'Reilly DCJ

COUNSEL : (A) P M Winch
(C) E A Wilkins

SOLICITORS: (A) D J Humphreys
(C) S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - multiple offences - application of Pearce v The Queen - young offender - sentence on one count manifestly excessive

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted - Appeal against fixed term sentence of three years for each of the break enter and steal counts numbered 1 to 5 dismissed - Appeal against sentence of eight years on break enter and steal count of 31 March 2000 (count 6) allowed - Sentence quashed - in lieu thereof the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for six years commencing on 31 March 2000 with a non-parole period of three years nine months commencing that day and expiring on 29 December 2003 - This sentence to be served concurrently with the other sentences.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

DOWD J

SMART AJ

Monday 6 August 2001

REGINA v JOSHUA WILLIAM TARPEY

JUDGMENT

1 SMART AJ: Joshua William Tarpey seeks leave to appeal against the severity of the sentences imposed upon him in respect of six counts of break enter and steal. On each of counts one to five he was sentenced to concurrent fixed terms of three years imprisonment.

2 As to count six he was sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years to be served concurrently with the other sentences.

3 When dealing with count six (the break enter and steal offence of 31 March 2000), the judge took into account eight other offences being two offences of break and enter with intent to steal, two offences of larceny, one of assault, one of goods in custody, one of possess house breaking implements, and one of possessing implements to steal a car.

4 The offences occurred between 9 November 1999 and 31 March 2000.

5 The following summary of the offences comes largely from portions of the judge's remarks. On 9 November 1999 the applicant went to a house in Flowerdale Road, Liverpool in daylight, removed a glass sliding door from its track, entered the house, ransacked the rooms, but apparently did not remove any property.

6 On 17 November 1999 at a Parramatta library, the applicant stole a young lady's mobile phone valued at $1,000 and a purse containing $60 when she temporarily left her belongings unattended.

7 On 26 November 1999 the applicant stole $300 from the till of a video shop at Guildford. There was also a relatively minor assault involving some pushing and shoving of the proprietor.

8 On 11 December 1999 the applicant broke through the window of a ground floor unit at Cronulla. He…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Regina v Tarpey

Details

AGLC: Regina v Tarpey [2001] NSWCCA 300
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 300
Decision Date: 6 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Tarpey involved the defendant, Tarpey, who was before the court on multiple charges. The nature of the dispute was the appropriate sentencing for the defendant's convictions. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. Tarpey had been convicted on several counts, including charges of fraud and theft. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offences while also considering the defendant's age and the principle that the sentence on one count should not be manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the sentence imposed on one of the counts was disproportionately high in relation to the other offences committed by the defendant. The court considered the principle from Pearce v The Queen, which emphasises that a sentence should not be manifestly excessive for any single count when multiple offences are involved. Additionally, the court had to consider the defendant's age, which could be a mitigating factor in sentencing.

The court found that while the offences committed by Tarpey were serious, the sentence imposed on one count was indeed manifestly excessive when compared to the others. The court took into account the defendant's age and the overall context of the offences. The High Court concluded that the sentence should be reduced to ensure that it was proportionate to the other offences and did not disproportionately punish the defendant for one count. The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to maintain fairness and proportionality in sentencing, in line with established legal principles.

The final orders of the court were to reduce the sentence on the count deemed to be manifestly excessive, ensuring that the overall sentence was proportionate and just. The court's decision underscored the importance of applying sentencing principles consistently and fairly, taking into account the totality of the offences and the individual circumstances of the defendant.

Orders